Saturday, October 29, 2016

I've voted in every US presidential election since 2004. I could have voted in the Bush v Gore election in 2000 as well, but irritatingly I didn't even realise I was eligible to vote until several years later. I don't need to beat myself up too much over that, though, because I wouldn't have been voting in Florida, or in any other swing state for that matter. And the latter point is what it all boils down to, really - I've voted for fringe left-wing candidates in all of the last three elections (including a revolutionary communist in 2012, who strangely enough I backed with the encouragement of Lib Dem blogger Caron Lindsay!), because there just didn't seem to be any point in doing anything else. If my vote has no chance whatever of swinging the balance, why would I give my endorsement to centre-right Democratic candidates who take an abhorrent stance on the death penalty?

There is something intensely irritating, though, about seeing your vote for the most powerful office in the world treated as an abstention or a non-vote. If you look back at footage of results programmes from previous presidential elections, you'll find that with very few exceptions, the vote tallies for third parties are not even mentioned or shown on screen. Of course, that's a very good argument in favour of continuing to vote for fringe candidates - ie. to embarrass the media into changing their ways and helping to open up the system. But throughout this year, there's been a nagging voice at the back of my head saying "wouldn't it be nice, in this election of all elections, to be able to vote for a credible non-Trump candidate, and to do so in all good conscience?"

And for long spells, it looked like that might just turn out to be possible. Although Bernie Sanders was always the underdog in the Democratic primaries, there were times when it seemed he had a genuine chance of pulling it off. And there were certainly times when it was hard to see how Clinton could ignore the Sanders movement in her choice for Vice-President nominee - surely, even if she couldn't bring herself to pick Sanders himself, she'd have to reach out to his voters with someone like Elizabeth Warren? But no, it wasn't to be. The choice of right-wing, pro-death penalty Tim Kaine seemed like an absolute kick in the teeth, and a classic example of an arrogant politician saying to her own base : "I can do whatever I like and you'll have to support me, because you have nowhere else to go". Well, there's always somewhere else to go, and I started resigning myself to 'opting out' for a fourth time in a row, and voting for the Green candidate Jill Stein.

However, the attraction of voting for the only candidate who can actually defeat Donald "Make Our Doons Great Again" Trump just wouldn't quite let me go. When I filled in my ballot paper a few days ago, I voted in every single down-ticket race before I could even bring myself to properly look at the presidential box - that's how ill the dilemma was making me feel. In the end, I averted my eyes from the words "Jill Stein" and "Green", and got the dirty deed over with as quickly as possible. This is how I justified it to myself -

1) This election, far more than most, doubles up as a proxy vote to decide control of the Supreme Court - possibly for the next two decades. In the wacky world of US politics, the Supreme Court has effectively become a quasi-legislature with well-defined conservative and liberal caucuses. From that point of view, voting for anyone other than Clinton or Trump genuinely is an abstention - because one or the other will be nominating the new justices. In the dream scenario, if Clinton wins and the Democrats make significant gains in the Senate, there would be no impediment to the shaping of a liberal-dominated court that could transform America over the coming years. It would be a decisive victory in the interminable culture wars. (The alternative, of course, is to risk a decisive defeat under Trump.)

2) By American standards, Clinton is reasonably strong on gun control, which was the one issue on which she ran clearly to the left of Bernie Sanders. That's not nothing. I haven't bothered checking whether our old friends in the Kevin Baker Fan Club are generally backing Donald Trump or Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, but I think we can safely assume that a Clinton presidency is just about their worst nightmare.

3) During the primaries, Clinton was dramatically challenged by a man who had spent years on death row for a crime he didn't commit, and asked how she could possibly maintain her support for capital punishment after hearing his story. I was quite surprised by how far she went in her response - she said she would be happy enough if the Supreme Court eliminated the death penalty in the states, leaving only a federal death penalty for the worst terrorism offences. It goes without saying that it is disturbing and appalling that in the year 2016, a supposedly "liberal" candidate in a "liberal democracy" is still in favour of the state putting its own citizens to death. But the depressing reality is that Clinton's words represented progress in an American context. She may well not really have meant them, but if a Democratic congress were to pass legislation imposing new restrictions on the federal death penalty, she'll find it very hard to justify using her veto after what she's said.

4) I suggested in the spring that there was perhaps a 3% chance of a Donald Trump presidency resulting in the destruction of human civilisation. A couple of anonymous commenters mocked me for saying that (one of them used it as an example of why I don't understand 'real' politics and should stick to polling analysis!), but I absolutely stand by it. If you look at the sequence of events that triggered the First World War - an accidental and unnecessary war that nobody really wanted - it's clear that bombast, buffoonery and narcissism played a big part. The mere possibility of an unstable character like Trump having his finger on the nuclear button is a crisis for the whole of humanity, and averting the danger overrides all other priorities. What complicates that point, of course, is that Clinton herself is being deeply irresponsible in her hawkish noises-off about Russia, meaning that the risk of nuclear war under her presidency would not be zero. But I'm confident that the risk would be dramatically lower with her than with Trump.

5) If there's a Brexit-style, small-to-moderate systemic error in the polls, it's still perfectly possible Trump could win the national popular vote. That obviously matters less than the outcome of the electoral college (which only voters in swing states can meaningfully affect), but if, say, Clinton were to win the presidency and Trump were to win the popular vote, it would be much easier for Trump to cast himself as the 'rightful king across the water', and keep his 'movement' alive to fight another day. It's probably a good idea to try to prevent that happening.

That might appear to be the case if you just look at their words, but you have to look at their characters as well. Trump is the sort of person who would be friends with Putin for ten days, and then get randomly offended by something and do a 180 degree turn. Remember how he once described Alex Salmond as "an amazing man", and then just a few months later was putting out press releases describing him as "Mad Alex"?

James, Trump is entitled to second opinion although he did get it wrong the first time about Kim Yung Eck. Trump if elected will follow the advise from the beaurocrats and military like his predecessors. The Yanks will look after their own interests.

I've always considered this to be a contest between the idiot and the warmonger. Trump might accidentally start a war (though hawkish comments from the US military seem to suggest they won't take much persuading), but Clinton is much more likely to do it deliberately, IMO.

James who runs this blog is no doubt a decent hootsman but a wee bit naive when it comes to international politics as he has been obcessed with petty nationalism for a while.The Yanks do not have friends only partners in their activities including the British and others in the EU and beyond.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

My daughter's black labrador dog has more sense than that moronic bastard Trump and would probably be a far better president. Hillary might not be the best Democrat candidate who has ever stood but she is light years better than Trump.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

Not going to try to say 'you're wrong to vote as you did' as it's *your* choice and not mine but really....Hillary will do nothing to solve anything or make anyone's lives any better (even gun control). And the commentator above who says she is as much of a warmonger as Trump is probably right....she has form for it; whereas we only suspect he's going to be trigger happy. Either of them will be a disaster, most probably, so I don't envy those who had to make the choice.

Well, abe lincoln only got 37 % , was the only president elected after admitting guilt for public fraud, so i think the whole lesser of two evils thing bothering folks is a bit much. You are unfair to both hillary and tim Kaine by not even considering that both have lifelong records on TRYING to correct our racial problem, which is americas own EVIL. It is doubtful america would have a death penalty of not for racism.the non rascists states rarely execute anyone and the feds rarely seek it here in these states either. Hillary gets a higher percent of black votes than obama or any other politician ever. That white people, however well meaning, disregard black peoples own views on racism just allows it to hide. A hillary vote will put the most anti racism president by far in the white house. She is getting 98.4 % of the black vote to zero for trump. Yes. Zero. Cut down racism, cut down capital punishment. Thanks for voting and thanks for voting for Hillary.peace out!

Feel free to stick your whining right up your fat black arse. Slavery was abolished in the USA 150 years ago. Take some responsibility for your own lives for once.

HRC is a serial liar, criminal, defender and protector of actual genuine rapists and supports full term abortion. Also known as murdering babies. I wouldn't vote for her if the alternative was ruth fucking davidson.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

Which state did you vote in? I appreciate the case for Hillary and might have voted the same way in any state in which the outcome was remotely in doubt, but in a good half of the states it is clear who will win, so I would probably vote Stein there.

Jill stein is an anti vaxxer! She hasnt released her tax returns. She is planning to run as a third party AGAINST Lizzy Warren in 2018 tilting the senate seat against her. If you trust sanders to be president but you dont trust him on wbo should be president? Huh? DONT mean to be snarky, but people with 50 years of getting shit done are gonna make mistakes ...going back to lincn, did you know he got the nomination by trading cabinet posts IN PUBLIC. Did you know he did not free the slaves, only some! And it took him 2 years to do that!

There are things to criticise about Stein, not least her stance on vaccinations, but that has to be balanced against Clinton's position at the heart of the war machine, her 'superpredators' remark, the issues with the Clinton foundation etc etc. At the end of the day Stein isn't going to win, it'd be a protest vote and in the hope that the Green party could build (though I don't think they'll have a strong showing).

Not sure why you bring up Sanders but it isn't a 'trust' issue here, I always try and make up my own mind about any set of candidates.

Not the most ringing of endorsements, and not bringing much in the way of idealism into the world. Simply put, Clinton is a criminal, and that's all she is. Your logic, however, seems to be that she's a competent and experienced criminal, and since public office is the rightful property of the criminal class, she's entitled.

I suspect that those voting for Trump know perfectly well the kind of buffoon he is. Probably, they've judged that the situation has become so bad under the rule of the Clinton caste (which means the entire, career political class, Republican or Democrat) that he's worth the risk. That should tell you much. And I don't really think you're helping much with the superior, unquestioned foundational assumptions of the European liberal regarding gun control and the death penalty.

Actually, of my five reasons, only one of them had anything to do with competence (and even then only indirectly), and none of them had anything to do with entitlement.

And I'm afraid you're giving the game away about your own politics and prejudices with your risible assumption that believing in basic stuff like public safety and the right to life has got something to do with "European liberalism". Are you American? If so, look around you. Not a single other country on the North American or South American mainlands actively uses the death penalty. Not one. What does that tell you?

In fact, four of your five reasons had everything to do with entitlement, the one exception being the threat of Trump starting a war. That alone is extraordinary, considering Clinton is the establishment war hawk who's bigging up Russia as the evil empire.

The Supreme Court has been becoming increasingly activist politically since Roe v Wade (and the much lesser known, but far more important, Doe v Bolton). This phenomenon has been a massive source of disturbance to a huge number of people in th U.S., many of whom consider the use of the court to be a classic liberal device to do an "end run" around the desires of the majority. Your philosophy of "we must get control of the court" seems to be very much in line with the liberal practice of gatekeeping, getting control of vital institutions and using them to either exclude those whose views you don't like or to actively ram your own views down their necks. That attitude can only be explained in terms of an unquestioned foundational assumption that you must be right and the lesser minds will thank you later. A bit like the British Labour Party.

Gun control is hardly a public safety issue, considering there are many countries around the world where people are armed to the teeth, but they don't go around gunning each other down. Similarly, even in countries where gun control is tight, people still get them when they really want them. Witness the IRA. The problem seems to be in the American psyche, not it's laws. Yet your response is not to attack the problem at its source, but to take away the children's toys. As, presumably, you believe yourself entitled to. This is exactly the same entitled liberal mindset I referred to in the previous paragraph, "you'll thank me later".

Until relatively recently, I would have agreed with you on the death penalty, but then I actually thought about it, rather than simply assuming I must be right, or that all "right-thinking" people agree with me. The assumption that criminality is a sickness or a pathology rather than a freely entered into choice is indicative of the paternalistic attitude we associate with a sociologically "gated community" of liberals who assume those with less formal education than they have are incapable of moral choice. If they ARE capable, then life for life is a hard teaching, but not an unjust one. Anything less is a statement that there ARE things more valuable than human life, and if you believe that then, forgive me for saying it, but you have a serious problem with your worldview. Nor will it answer to point to the possibility of innocent people being executed. About 1700 people are killed on British roads every year. We could stop this by banning motorized transport, but of course we don't. We would consider the loss of that benefit far too great. So instead we acquiesce with this loss of life and concentrate on trying to increase road safety. A bit like trying to ensure that only the guilty are executed.

Your final reason is just amazing and can only be explained in terms of the liberal notion of "inevitable progress". Why on earth SHOULDN'T people be allowed to continue holding contrary views? They don't require "permission" to do so based on a putative Trump win in the popular vote, any more than Scotland requires permission to keep pushing for independence after the 2014 referendum. It's life, people differ and they're not monsters for doing so. Therefore why would I be worried about "giving the game away" regarding my own politics? I'm a traditionalist. Anything wrong with that?

No, I'm not American. I'm not sure why that would be significant on this blog, since most of your commenters won't be either. Are we saying only the ones who agree with you count?

The assumption that criminality is a sickness or a pathology rather than a freely entered into choice is indicative of the paternalistic attitude we associate with a sociologically "gated community" of liberals who assume those with less formal education than they have are incapable of moral choice. If they ARE capable, then life for life is a hard teaching, but not an unjust one. Anything less is a statement that there ARE things more valuable than human life, and if you believe that then, forgive me for saying it, but you have a serious problem with your worldview.

You believe that it is worth ending a human life for the sake of the possibility of deterrence. I don't necessarily disagree, but that's quite explicitly a statement that some things are worth more than human life.

You're assuming I base the validity of execution on deterrence. Deterrence IS one of the three valid reasons upon which western society (historically Christian) based its right to administer punishment, but for the punishment to be valid only ONE of the three need be present. The second is rehabilitation. The third is the one most people have trouble with these days. Retribution.

You described execution as "a hard teaching". What does that refer to other than deterrence?

Rehabilitation obviously doesn't apply in this case. If retribution is your motive, then again, you believe that there is something more important than human life. Would you say you have "a serious problem with your worldview"?

So...you're killing these people because retribution is equally important as human life? Why even bother, then? Prior to the execution, we have a human life and no retribution. Following the execution, we have gained retribution, but have lost the human life. If these things are worth the same, the combined value hasn't changed. Seems like a pretty pointless exercise.

Incidentally, it's interesting how you berate others for believing that all "right-thinking" people must agree with them, and three sentences later state that anyone who doesn't share your opinion on this matter has "a serious problem with their worldview".

Well, I don't think I HAVE berated anyone, and the whole point of what I've been saying is that not agreeing with someone else does not make you WRONG-thinking. The key to understanding what I've been saying are the words "inevitable progress". Progress is not inevitable. It has to be tested, and I hold that the ideology of the modern liberal left has failed the test on every front. I've given a few reasons above, and I could probably fill a book with more. The problem is that it's incredibly hard to change your mindset once you've committed to it. I know. I used to be a liberal leftist. That's why gatekeeping is such an effective tactic. If you control the gate, you can stop anyone getting in who might ask awkward questions, and you can tar anyone outside as a loony.. The BBC do it all the time with its presentation of Scottish politics, a practice which is regularly complained about by blogs like this one, yet you don't seem to appreciate that the mainstream media might be doing the same regarding Clinton and Trump.

Consider this - are you engaged in this sub-thread because you disagree with what I'm saying, or because you're somewhat shocked that anyone would say it? If so, why? It's because at some level, you assume that all the great questions of history have been answered, just as the gatekeepers of the msm preach. Just like I used to believe. And it's a kind of heresy to question it.

The point of retribution is exactly that "the combined value hasn't changed". Life for life, because only life can truly pay for life.

The BBC do it all the time with its presentation of Scottish politics, a practice which is regularly complained about by blogs like this one, yet you don't seem to appreciate that the mainstream media might be doing the same regarding Clinton and Trump.

I'm genuinely baffled as to how you reach this conclusion. I haven't even mentioned Clinton, Trump or the mainstream media. I've only been discussing capital punishment. You should get out of this habit of attributing views to people which they haven't expressed, on subjects which they haven't even raised.

Consider this - are you engaged in this sub-thread because you disagree with what I'm saying, or because you're somewhat shocked that anyone would say it? If so, why? It's because at some level, you assume that all the great questions of history have been answered, just as the gatekeepers of the msm preach. Just like I used to believe. And it's a kind of heresy to question it.

And there you go again. The answer to your question is "the former", which slightly renders the rest of the paragraph irrelevant.

What gets me is that despite a fundamental aspect of Christianity being that only God and, until relatively recently, the Pope being infallible support for the death penalty seems higher in fundamentalists. Demonstrably they're happy for innocents to die as there's plenty of evidence of mistaken convictions. Besides which the death penalty made murder far more common in the past when applied for other crimes than murder. If you know you will be killed if caught you're far more likely to kill to escape.

We have plenty idiots in our political system,but now it seems the USA want to prove "any idiot you have we have one dafter" just how it looks to me.Again with a passing thought I do think Hilary is the better man,and Trump? well if his name is another name for a fart (and it is) it shows that not only is he full of wind,but stinky wind at that,bet there is more dodgy stuff about Trump to come out like "in the nick of time" a story will emerge,it is entertaining though almost as good as "The Walking Dead" the seventh series is looking good,(aye I'm hooked on it)Julian Assange might be thinking if he helps Trump to pump etc,he might get the presidential pardon for his misdemeanours!When he re-thinks about it he'll change his mind.Just to laugh .

I think that's an incredibly silly comment, to be honest. I voted for Bernie Sanders and got my prayer-mat out on a weekly basis for him, but to no avail. Choosing the lesser of the two evils I'm presented with does not make me responsible for every single thing Hillary Clinton does.

James, Trump has not been in power but Obama and Clinton have. Obama bailed out the banks while tens of thousands lost their homes and the houses were left to rot. Trump can only be judged during and after gaining power.If you stick to Clinton then the same roadshow will continue for four maybe eight years.

The homes were not left to rot, in most states obama admins got lenders to let people stay untilbbanks had buyers. Over half got bonuses up to 10 k to leave house in good condition. Some places that was not possible.homeless is down 11 % zince 2011, 40% i, cities and states that followed federal guidelines.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

This is one you cant win man. My gut feeling is that whoever wins it will be a lame duck Presidency. If Trump wins I think we are looking at his running mate as the President in the near future as Trump wont last long, well America being America that is. Clinton is already a lame duck. Her running mate could easily be the President before long as well. That is my peculiar view from the outside looking in with increasing horror at the choice facing Americans.

So who of the possible future Vice Presidents soon to be President would you prefer James?

The Yanks will do what they do and vote. The World thought Reagan would cause World War 111. It did not happen. In fact Reagan helped get rid of the Soviet Gulags which did not exist according to some western socialists.I sem to recall that Kim Yung Eck was a fan of the Soviets and against NATO. Could be wrong.Trump is no more a danger to the world than Kennedy!

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

I find it amusing that James always rushes out and blogs about how good by-election results are for the SNP however he seems to be conveniently quiet about last night's results in Aberdeenshire. I mean, the SNP winning Garscadden by just a whisker was already piss poor considering Glasgow is seen as a Yes city and the SNP won all constituencies in the UK General Election & Holyrood election with double digit margins. So clearly, it would appear that the scottish electorate is starting to fall out with the SNP.

The Scottish Government is so fixed on the constitutional issue that they've not even introduced a single piece of legislation since their re-election: http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-under-attack-for-legislative-vacuum-since-election-1-4272777 - I mean wow, the electorate are really seeing through that.

Anyhow James, I will help you with how to name your next blog post:Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious gains by the Conservatives in Aberdeenshire as Salmond gets thumped in his own backyard.

Oh and for anyone who is wondering, these were the results of the by-elections yesterday in Aberdeenshire:

Haha, in fact...Salmond himself had helped a lot in the campaign at Inverurie.

No wonder why Sturgeon is now talking about retaining the single market as much as possible as the best deal for Scotland on Brexit :) she clearly doesn't want a new independence referendum. The voters do not want it and even if there was a referendum (which there will not be) the No vote will win it.

Folk were predicting a great resurgence from the Yes vote following Brexit but this has not happened. You guys are still under 50% at 47% on most polls and that's after Brexit and a Tory majority government in Westminster. If a majority can't support independence with that then they never will.

Finally, given the popularity of Ruth Davidson and the Conservative revival in Scotland, the independence movement will be toast unless they win a referendum during this parliamentary term. 2021 will deliver a unionist majority in Holyrood with Ruth Davidson as First Minister. :)

The winds of change are blowing and Scotland is going to flourish.

Yeah, I know a lot of folk are gonna attack me with the 'troll' line but there will be no serious arguments or points made to counteract what i'm saying.

I'm still waiting on the Scottish Lib Dem surge the Daily Mail fuckwits on Stormfront Lite were predicting for last year and this year.

Always happy to help.

BTW Why are the tories so ashamed of putting the word "Conservative" on any election material if they are 'resurgent'. They certainly won't get away with that shit next year and nor will 'part time' Davidson.:o)

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.

The Britnat si considers Scotland a colony and calls scottish people "jocks", advocates arming Leave campaigners, armed militias in every workplace and armed insurrection, claimed Jo Cox's husband was a fascist, uses racial and ethnic slurs while claiming they're not derogatory, pretends to be Labour (badly) while espousing far-right racist hate-speech, praises Theresa May and the tories and displays a perverted poisonous obsession with Scotland's First Minister & her predecessor.

The ultra-right-wing authoritarian colonial mouthpiece can trot off snivelling back to its chums at the Daily Suppress whenever it's ready.